Why do you post here?

by SmithersJones Mon 18 Jul 2011, 5:59 pm

With the way some (most) threads seem to be going in the last few days, I know I'm not the only one considering whether to bother with this place any more. What's your main interest on here?

by NedB-H Mon 18 Jul 2011, 6:18 pm

It's turning into... the old 606!

I see Keizo's voted already...

by barragan Mon 18 Jul 2011, 6:34 pm

things certainly seem to becoming a little unbalanced - i wonder whats happened?

by NedB-H Mon 18 Jul 2011, 6:42 pm

ban_bam wrote:things certainly seem to becoming a little unbalanced - i wonder whats happened?

A major happened. It'll calm down in a couple of days (hopefully)

by Rossa Mon 18 Jul 2011, 6:43 pm

Whats happened is WUMs are not being banned... its quite easy to spot those doing it... they are damaging the nature of this board... boxing

i can't see why they haven't just been shut out... if they are not the board will lose valuable members :run1: for the sake of maintaining sense of fairness which is completely misplaced...

by Davie Mon 18 Jul 2011, 7:26 pm

Rossa - I'll say to you what I've said to others. Would you rather this was a place where people were banned just for having an opinion different to yours? What about if your opinion differed from mine? Would I be justified (under your definitions) of banning you?

Of course I wouldn't and you wouldn't like it if we had a draconian policy of banning anyone who had controversial opinions. Half of the regular (and otherwise respected) posters here would be banned under your scheme.

Debate them or ignore them, but we won't turn this place into some sanitzed, over-policed and politically correct forum

by SmithersJones Mon 18 Jul 2011, 7:28 pm

Rossa wrote:Whats happened is WUMs are not being banned... its quite easy to spot those doing it... they are damaging the nature of this board... i can't see why they haven't just been shut out... if they are not the board will lose valuable members :run1: for the sake of maintaining sense of fairness which is completely misplaced...

I think you've got it spot on there, Rossa. I know LJ is/was confrontational at times, but he contributed positively most of the time. People who just come on to wind others up or to take the p1ss are far worse for the board in the long run, even if they're less trouble for the mods in the short term.

by oldshanker Mon 18 Jul 2011, 7:35 pm

SmithersJones wrote:With the way some (most) threads seem to be going in the last few days, I know I'm not the only one considering whether to bother with this place any more. What's your main interest on here?

Yup - with you there.

Having said that part of the joy of the old 606 was reading the WUM put downs. But that doesn't happen on here and I am getting a tad fed up with the holier than thou attitude that seems to prevail.

It can be useful to organise meets etc.

by Noshankingtonite Mon 18 Jul 2011, 7:54 pm

I try and ignore all the b0ll0x on here. I've picked up some valuable tips and made some good contacts too. For my part I've tried to post a few good threads, be it factual or humorous. It is a good place to organise meets. It's not been the same since LJ's gone and Mav has been noticeable by his absence recently as well....

by Rossa Mon 18 Jul 2011, 7:58 pm

Davie,

There is a difference between those are can be confrontational, opininated etc... eg Mac, s_r and LJ, but valued members of the forum and those who are on here just to wind people up eg Baboo and Keizo, personally i think, they should be banned, can you seriously not tell the difference?

It's not personal Davie, please do not take it that way, its just my opinion...

How about we put this to the people? Have a poll and if say 25 people think an individual should go, then they go... that's the rule at my golf club...if people knew they could be kicked of the hacked off a significant number of members they might not bother to sart with...

by Davie Mon 18 Jul 2011, 8:06 pm

Rossa - the problem is that what you are asking for is for someone to take a subjective view, rather than an objective one.

I'd be very happy to see LJ back but I would bet a large amount of money that 25 people could be found who would have thought he should go.

The forum rules evolve and are constantly being reviewed. The rules as they stand largely are black and white, but it wouldn't be possible to moderate a forum fairly that had a rule that just said "no WUMs". It's just too hard to define in terms that wouldn't cause as much trouble as it tried to avoid

by SmithersJones Mon 18 Jul 2011, 8:14 pm

I don't agree with the idea of 'voting' people off. Christ knows tv based on that principle is utter trash. Far too easy for people to stir it up and gang up on people. However, I think the mods should be more ruthless with the people who are genuine WUMs. One or two warnings, then ban them for a period, say a week, and if they return after that and resume in their previous style make it 2 weeks, then 4 etc. In the meantime, open other channels of communication to allow them to 'convince' the mods that they weren't wumming, and if they can do so in an adult and reasoned manner then lift their ban.

by Bagman Mon 18 Jul 2011, 8:19 pm

SmithersJones wrote:I don't agree with the idea of 'voting' people off. Christ knows tv based on that principle is utter trash. Far too easy for people to stir it up and gang up on people. However, I think the mods should be more ruthless with the people who are genuine WUMs. One or two warnings, then ban them for a period, say a week, and if they return after that and resume in their previous style make it 2 weeks, then 4 etc. In the meantime, open other channels of communication to allow them to 'convince' the mods that they weren't wumming, and if they can do so in an adult and reasoned manner then lift their ban.

I agree with you

by kwinigolfer Mon 18 Jul 2011, 8:26 pm

I've posted regularly for over four years and never had a problem with any specific individual, although some have come up with comments that, under the old 606 policy, I was able to delete. (That was a good facility to have.)

For the most part, it is worth the effort to engage those who comment - the only individual I have had occasional problems with is a long and respected contributor to 606/606v2 who clearly knows his golf.

Otherwise I, or another poster, have had the wit to disarm any troublemaker.

If you don't like a thread, ignore it. No-one will post if they know they'll be ignored all the time.

by Davie Mon 18 Jul 2011, 8:27 pm

kwinigolfer wrote:I've posted regularly for over four years and never had a problem with any specific individual, although some have come up with comments that, under the old 606 policy, I was able to delete. (That was a good facility to have.)

For the most part, it is worth the effort to engage those who comment - the only individual I have had occasional problems with is a long and respected contributor to 606/606v2 who clearly knows his golf.

Otherwise I, or another poster, have had the wit to disarm any troublemaker.

If you don't like a thread, ignore it. No-one will post if they know they'll be ignored all the time.

by **Derbyblue** Mon 18 Jul 2011, 8:28 pm

SmithersJones wrote:I don't agree with the idea of 'voting' people off. Christ knows tv based on that principle is utter trash. Far too easy for people to stir it up and gang up on people. However, I think the mods should be more ruthless with the people who are genuine WUMs. One or two warnings, then ban them for a period, say a week, and if they return after that and resume in their previous style make it 2 weeks, then 4 etc. In the meantime, open other channels of communication to allow them to 'convince' the mods that they weren't wumming, and if they can do so in an adult and reasoned manner then lift their ban.

Hero wrote:Our general policy in regards to breaking the rules is: Warn, Day-Ban, Perm Ban. Depending on the severity of the issue, you may be insta-day-banned (remember rule #2.) Furthermore, repetitive bad behaviour can result in a perm ban, whether it’s twice or 10 times, it is up to the Admins.

by SmithersJones Mon 18 Jul 2011, 8:32 pm

Derbyblue wrote:
SmithersJones wrote:I don't agree with the idea of 'voting' people off. Christ knows tv based on that principle is utter trash. Far too easy for people to stir it up and gang up on people. However, I think the mods should be more ruthless with the people who are genuine WUMs. One or two warnings, then ban them for a period, say a week, and if they return after that and resume in their previous style make it 2 weeks, then 4 etc. In the meantime, open other channels of communication to allow them to 'convince' the mods that they weren't wumming, and if they can do so in an adult and reasoned manner then lift their ban.

Hero wrote:Our general policy in regards to breaking the rules is: Warn, Day-Ban, Perm Ban. Depending on the severity of the issue, you may be insta-day-banned (remember rule #2.) Furthermore, repetitive bad behaviour can result in a perm ban, whether it’s twice or 10 times, it is up to the Admins.

Keyword there is rules though. It's not against the forum rules to post a deliberately aggravating thread or message, more's the pity.

by Davie Mon 18 Jul 2011, 8:37 pm

100% correct SJ

If anyone wants to take a shot at drafting a rule that disallows such posts, without putting it at the mercy of subjectivity or a misplaced sense of power then go ahead.

I guess that any such suggestion could be applied against any number of respected posters whose removal would cause an outcry.

Any suggestions would be looked at though

by **Derbyblue** Mon 18 Jul 2011, 8:40 pm

SmithersJones wrote:
Derbyblue wrote:
SmithersJones wrote:However, I think the mods should be more ruthless with the people who are genuine WUMs. One or two warnings, then ban them for a period, say a week, and if they return after that and resume in their previous style make it 2 weeks, then 4 etc. In the meantime, open other channels of communication to allow them to 'convince' the mods that they weren't wumming, and if they can do so in an adult and reasoned manner then lift their ban.

Hero wrote:Our general policy in regards to breaking the rules is: Warn, Day-Ban, Perm Ban. Depending on the severity of the issue, you may be insta-day-banned (remember rule #2.) Furthermore, repetitive bad behaviour can result in a perm ban, whether it’s twice or 10 times, it is up to the Admins.

Keyword there is rules though. It's not against the forum rules to post a deliberately aggravating thread or message, more's the pity.

Hero wrote:1) Follow the Golden Rule and treat others as you would like to be treated!

• Do not spam. This includes posts that are irrelevant to the thread topic (off-topic), duplicate posts, flames/inflammatory posts and non-English posts.

I would say those two rules pretty much say don't make aggravating threads or posts, the problem is what may aggravate one person doesn't aggravate everyone, if someone is becoming that big of an issue skip past their posts, or I believe you can do something to your settings where their posts don't even show up.

by Yadsendew Mon 18 Jul 2011, 8:48 pm

OK, I'm going to be contrary here; although I don't engage in winding people up, I actually don't see much wrong with wumming, some of it can be quite funny and entertaining as long as it's within the protocols. Sometimes we take ourselves far too seriously. Some of the best posts I've read were responses to WUMS on the old 606.

It's a difficult balancing act for the Mods whom, I suppose are damned if they do and damned if they don't : Headscratch

by Davie Mon 18 Jul 2011, 8:50 pm

Derbyblue wrote:I believe you can do something to your settings where their posts don't even show up.

That should be the case, though there is a problem with the forum software at the moment that is being looked at.

Theoretically you should be able to add someone you find annoying to your "foe" list. Posts by anyone on that list should be hidden from your view. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working correctly at the moment but it's worth remembering when it eventually gets fixed.

However, in my experience, the people who complain loudest about these sorts are those who love to take them on at their own game. In a sense it's normal human nature to block someone like that - most people like to see what is going on so they can maintain their sense of indignance.

As a matter of interest, how many people would "foe" some of these annoying people that they call WUMs? I suspect not many would really do it - they LOVE to have something to complain about

by NedB-H Mon 18 Jul 2011, 9:05 pm

kwinigolfer wrote:I've posted regularly for over four years and never had a problem with any specific individual, although some have come up with comments that, under the old 606 policy, I was able to delete. (That was a good facility to have.)

For the most part, it is worth the effort to engage those who comment - the only individual I have had occasional problems with is a long and respected contributor to 606/606v2 who clearly knows his golf.

Otherwise I, or another poster, have had the wit to disarm any troublemaker.

If you don't like a thread, ignore it. No-one will post if they know they'll be ignored all the time.

by SmithersJones Mon 18 Jul 2011, 9:12 pm

Davie wrote:
Derbyblue wrote:I believe you can do something to your settings where their posts don't even show up.

That should be the case, though there is a problem with the forum software at the moment that is being looked at.

Theoretically you should be able to add someone you find annoying to your "foe" list. Posts by anyone on that list should be hidden from your view. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working correctly at the moment but it's worth remembering when it eventually gets fixed.

However, in my experience, the people who complain loudest about these sorts are those who love to take them on at their own game. In a sense it's normal human nature to block someone like that - most people like to see what is going on so they can maintain their sense of indignance.

As a matter of interest, how many people would "foe" some of these annoying people that they call WUMs? I suspect not many would really do it - they LOVE to have something to complain about

I would certainly 'foe' the likes of kezio and baboo.

I find it disappointing that you feel you can't be subjective, Davie. As the rules do apparently preclude 'wumming', what exactly is the point of moderators if they refuse to decide what's a wind-up and what isn't?

Kwini - it's a little too simplistic to say 'just ignore them' since many threads that are otherwise interesting get highjacked. People do respond and the whole board is worse off for it. I don't respond, personally, but it annoys me nonetheless.

by SmithersJones Mon 18 Jul 2011, 9:22 pm

I've added an option to the poll, you can revote if you wish.

by drive4show Mon 18 Jul 2011, 9:26 pm

kwinigolfer wrote:I've posted regularly for over four years and never had a problem with any specific individual, although some have come up with comments that, under the old 606 policy, I was able to delete. (That was a good facility to have.)

For the most part, it is worth the effort to engage those who comment - the only individual I have had occasional problems with is a long and respected contributor to 606/606v2 who clearly knows his golf.

Otherwise I, or another poster, have had the wit to disarm any troublemaker.

If you don't like a thread, ignore it. No-one will post if they know they'll be ignored all the time.

Trying to work out who said individual is......hope it's not me Shocked

by kwinigolfer Mon 18 Jul 2011, 9:31 pm

Smithers,
The one option I WOULD like to see is the "delete this comment" facility that posters had available to them at BBC 606.

I DO think that the author of any article/thread has a responsibility to manage it if he/she hopes to sustain a cogent discussion or series of comments. If that is done successfully I think you will find problems are reduced.

keizo's thread attracted 100 comments - that tells me he touched a nerve even though most posters just felt it was keizo being keizo. All those commenters could easily have chosen not to swallow the bait.

PS: No problem drive4; I suspect the only person who'd guess is the individual him(I think!)self!!

by Adam D Mon 18 Jul 2011, 9:32 pm

I know its not me, I have never been a respected poster on any of the boards.

by drive4show Mon 18 Jul 2011, 9:36 pm

I'd like another voting selection please, 'Try to help others'

I quite enjoy trying to advise those inferior to me on the technicalities of the game and courses to play Wink

:run1:

by SmithersJones Mon 18 Jul 2011, 9:38 pm

drive4show wrote:I'd like another voting selection please, 'Try to help others'

I quite enjoy trying to advise those inferior to me on the technicalities of the game and courses to play

:run1:

If you'd be so kind, please Davie?

by Diggers Mon 18 Jul 2011, 9:46 pm

I think it's fine as it is, the mods do a very difficult, sometimes impossible, job well.
Ignore or engage, nobody is forced to do anything.
What the board does need , as did 606, is a continual supply of decent threads to keep everyone interested.

by JAS Mon 18 Jul 2011, 9:47 pm

I must admit I was all for "remove the Wummers" and said so on a thread to which Davie slapped me back into place. As people who have seen my posts (and my golf on a bad day) will know...I can have a spur of the moment short fuse. I apologise if any of my inflamed responses to some people have upset others.

I actually get Davies stance, not an easy job trying to be fair to everyone and not be subjective and judgemental whilst at the same time looking after the boards best interests. On the other hand there are one or 2 who ARE damaging the boards. I don't mind a bit of banter, even a bit of wumming, I can give and take but with one or 2 "Tigers" who I don't think I need to name I'd like to be Elin Woods, 5 iron in hand!!

by JPX Mon 18 Jul 2011, 9:51 pm

Why do you post here?

Hmmm I was asking myself the same question today when I read the most pathetic series of comments showing a complete lack of respect towards certain professional golfers.

I think ignoring those comments that wind us up is the right action, even if it means posting a lot less frequently.

by JAS Mon 18 Jul 2011, 9:56 pm

By the way I would use the foe function if it worked...I need to be saved from myself!!

by Faldono1fan Mon 18 Jul 2011, 11:02 pm

I like a bit of banter, but sometimes it does get really personal on here and it's not done in a nice way. I only post on here occasionally as a result and after today's round of pettiness not sure I will bother again. We should be celebrating a great win by a nice guy who has been through something that most of us cannot imagine, but instead all there is is petty bickering. I don't think many of us would talk like that if we were face to face with that person, but from the safety of the computer it seems anything goes. It's like the mild mannered accountant who becomes a different person behind the wheel of a car. Bizarre!

by Davie Tue 19 Jul 2011, 5:45 am

I've added the extra option in the vote for D4S

by MustPuttBetter Tue 19 Jul 2011, 7:59 am

Personally, i really enjoy reading this website and contributing. I'm not sure i would change much. I think all the mods do a good and difficult job.
Whilst the WUMs can be very annoying they can, as many have said, be ignored. And let's face it sometimes you (I) know they should be ignored but it can to some extent be entertaining to engage them. I agree with Yads that some of the funniest responses are in reply to the numpties. I read the forum for golf info but also sometimes for a bit of a laugh. I don't think we should lose that.

That said, if some people do not like the WUMs and are seriously considering leaving then regardless of my views, it needs attention. I'd hate to see the likes of SJ and OS leaving as i enjoy their posts much more than the WUMs'.

The foe system doesn't sound like a bad idea even if it's just to serve as a flag as to whom to keep an eye on?

by puligny Tue 19 Jul 2011, 10:17 am

I am not as regular a poster as others but really enjoy the facility provided. There are frustrations, particularly the knocking copy on professional golfers, but if I don't want to read it I have the option of ignoring! As for being wound up - nope! In my time I've been insulted by real pros, and nothing on here counts.
It is a really good facility - keep it healthy.

by JDandfries Tue 19 Jul 2011, 10:29 am

I think, Society as a whole is getting all too sensitive, just because someones opinion differes from another, doesn't make them a WUM.

I wont be labelled disrespectful for not liking a certain golfer, respect is earned, and should not be a given.

There are already too many rules in life as a whole, we have mods, and it is their job to keep an eye on the minions, let them do it!

by LadyPutt Tue 19 Jul 2011, 10:41 am

Unfortunately, we all know that a Major brings out the WUMs. After a few days, they tend to go away again. They don't really know much about golf and I prefer to ignore them. If you try and "speed read" the postings, you can usually filter out the rubbish and only read the relevant postings.

If I see anything written by Keizo or Baboo, then I don't really bother reaing it and certainly try not to take it seriously.

Did I miss something ? Has LJ gone forever?

by sharrison01 Tue 19 Jul 2011, 10:44 am

LP, I get the impression that his enforced break has led to him not returning. Not for the time being anyway...

by McLaren Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:43 am

Keizo is hardly a wum and his article generated debate, what more do you want on a forum. I actually think the one thing the mods have done well on the golf forum is let the wums have their say, after all one person’s wum is another’s sage. Well sort of. It is sad that LJ, however ignorant he may be, has fallen fowl of his own arrogance. Yes I disagree that he should have been banned but he seems to have thought he was beyond the rules us muggles follow and refused to return on the terms of the site.

As for why I post, well I love golf and think it a wonder of the internet that I can engage with like minded lovers of gowf whil I am meant to be working. This is even better when there are the like of Kwini, d4s, doc, mav etc who I can learn from.

PS kwini I hope it was not I who upset you articles.

by super_realist Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:46 am

LJ has fallen "fowl"?

Well, we were talking Poultry, or was that Poulter?

by sharrison01 Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:55 am

I enjoy the golf talk and particularly appreciate there being people from all over the world that can give some local knowledge into the golf in their region.

The WUM's are a pity but they are rarely much of an issue when you know who to look for. I don't think that they are any worse than the recent straying of debates to argue about politics and the like that the recent major has obviously stimulated, but 4 times a year for both is acceptable.

The mods also do their bit - sometimes have felt that they ride the line between mod and poster but that has been very rare and their efforts should only be appreciated - they certainly do a better job than I would!

by Tony B Liar Tue 19 Jul 2011, 2:04 pm

Why do I post here (occasionally) and certainly on the old BBC boards

To avoid work.........I assumed everyone else did the same Whistle

by kwinigolfer Tue 19 Jul 2011, 2:08 pm

Mac,
Certainly not! I'd bloody tell you!! thumbsup

by Diggers Tue 19 Jul 2011, 2:10 pm

Tony B Liar wrote:Why do I post here (occasionally) and certainly on the old BBC boards

To avoid work.........I assumed everyone else did the same

Tony did you go over to the Golf Observer board at all ?

by Tony B Liar Tue 19 Jul 2011, 2:14 pm

Diggers wrote:
Tony B Liar wrote:Why do I post here (occasionally) and certainly on the old BBC boards

To avoid work.........I assumed everyone else did the same

Tony did you go over to the Golf Observer board at all ?

Yeah, for a while, but tbh it was nt the same as the old BBC boards. Very few posters came across which meant it became sort of an 'old boys' club.

by Diggers Tue 19 Jul 2011, 2:16 pm

Fair enough, just wondered if it was still going and if the members could be tempted over here.

by KeizoYamata Tue 19 Jul 2011, 3:37 pm

Davie wrote:Rossa - I'll say to you what I've said to others. Would you rather this was a place where people were banned just for having an opinion different to yours? What about if your opinion differed from mine? Would I be justified (under your definitions) of banning you?

Of course I wouldn't and you wouldn't like it if we had a draconian policy of banning anyone who had controversial opinions. Half of the regular (and otherwise respected) posters here would be banned under your scheme.

Debate them or ignore them, but we won't turn this place into some sanitzed, over-policed and politically correct forum

Well said Dave, its the do-gooders who make life tough for the Mods with all their complaints. The rest of us just want to talk about golf and not make life difficult for the mods. Keep up the good work Dave Very Happy

by Davie Tue 19 Jul 2011, 3:40 pm

I'm tempted to break our own rules....

Wink

by Sponsored content